Refutation or dialogue?Citation formats

Standard

Refutation or dialogue? Śaṃkara’s treatment of the Bhāgavatas. / Suthren Hirst, Jacqueline.

In Dialogue with Classical Indian Traditions : Encounter, transformation and interpretation. ed. / Brian Black; Chakravarthi Ram-Prasad. New York & London : Routledge, 2019. p. 51-65 (Routledge Dialogues in South Asian Traditions: Religion, Philosophy, Literature and History series).

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterpeer-review

Harvard

Suthren Hirst, J 2019, Refutation or dialogue? Śaṃkara’s treatment of the Bhāgavatas. in B Black & C Ram-Prasad (eds), In Dialogue with Classical Indian Traditions : Encounter, transformation and interpretation. Routledge Dialogues in South Asian Traditions: Religion, Philosophy, Literature and History series, Routledge, New York & London, pp. 51-65.

APA

Suthren Hirst, J. (2019). Refutation or dialogue? Śaṃkara’s treatment of the Bhāgavatas. In B. Black, & C. Ram-Prasad (Eds.), In Dialogue with Classical Indian Traditions : Encounter, transformation and interpretation (pp. 51-65). (Routledge Dialogues in South Asian Traditions: Religion, Philosophy, Literature and History series). Routledge.

Vancouver

Suthren Hirst J. Refutation or dialogue? Śaṃkara’s treatment of the Bhāgavatas. In Black B, Ram-Prasad C, editors, In Dialogue with Classical Indian Traditions : Encounter, transformation and interpretation. New York & London: Routledge. 2019. p. 51-65. (Routledge Dialogues in South Asian Traditions: Religion, Philosophy, Literature and History series).

Author

Suthren Hirst, Jacqueline. / Refutation or dialogue? Śaṃkara’s treatment of the Bhāgavatas. In Dialogue with Classical Indian Traditions : Encounter, transformation and interpretation. editor / Brian Black ; Chakravarthi Ram-Prasad. New York & London : Routledge, 2019. pp. 51-65 (Routledge Dialogues in South Asian Traditions: Religion, Philosophy, Literature and History series).

Bibtex

@inbook{e09ac60416154c9789b1e42852a9db2d,
title = "Refutation or dialogue?: {\'S}aṃkara{\textquoteright}s treatment of the Bhāgavatas",
abstract = "The second pāda of the second adhyāya of the Brahma-sūtras is primarily concerned with the refutation of opponents to Vedānta, in the views of most commentators. In his Advaitin commentary, {\'S}aṃkara c.700 A.D., makes this crystal clear in his vocabulary of rejection, invalidity and so forth. Even where he accepts that some of the opponent{\textquoteright}s views may be acceptable, he is categorical in his rejection of what is incompatible with his Advaitin view. Under such circumstances, is it even possible to consider these arguments as {\textquoteleft}dialogues{\textquoteright}? In this paper, I re-examine {\'S}aṃkara{\textquoteright}s approach to the Bhāgavatas in the light of work on Pāncarātra texts by Colas, Rastelli, Bock-Raming and others. Beginning with Brahma-sūtra-bhāṣya 2.2.42-45, but considering this material inthe light of {\'S}aṃkara{\textquoteright}s broader corpus too, I argue that {\'S}aṃkara is indeedconducting a dialogue with different Vaiṣṇavas, not simply refuting them, in the context of contemporary brahminical repositionings. I go on to identify the group he addresses as akin to the brahminical Sātvatas mentioned in the Jayākhyā-Saṃhitā and suggest a pedagogical reason for his unusual engagement with them. Finally I suggest on the basis of a career's study of {\'S}aṃkara why it was that he, an Advaitin, counter-intuitively included the Bhagavad Gītā in the so-called triple canon on which subsequent Vedāntins were required to comment. ",
keywords = "dialogue and interaction, Hindu traditions, Buddhism, reasoning, narrative",
author = "{Suthren Hirst}, Jacqueline",
year = "2019",
language = "English",
isbn = "978-1-138-54139-9",
series = "Routledge Dialogues in South Asian Traditions: Religion, Philosophy, Literature and History series",
publisher = "Routledge",
pages = "51--65",
editor = "Brian Black and Chakravarthi Ram-Prasad",
booktitle = "In Dialogue with Classical Indian Traditions",
address = "United States",

}

RIS

TY - CHAP

T1 - Refutation or dialogue?

T2 - Śaṃkara’s treatment of the Bhāgavatas

AU - Suthren Hirst, Jacqueline

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - The second pāda of the second adhyāya of the Brahma-sūtras is primarily concerned with the refutation of opponents to Vedānta, in the views of most commentators. In his Advaitin commentary, Śaṃkara c.700 A.D., makes this crystal clear in his vocabulary of rejection, invalidity and so forth. Even where he accepts that some of the opponent’s views may be acceptable, he is categorical in his rejection of what is incompatible with his Advaitin view. Under such circumstances, is it even possible to consider these arguments as ‘dialogues’? In this paper, I re-examine Śaṃkara’s approach to the Bhāgavatas in the light of work on Pāncarātra texts by Colas, Rastelli, Bock-Raming and others. Beginning with Brahma-sūtra-bhāṣya 2.2.42-45, but considering this material inthe light of Śaṃkara’s broader corpus too, I argue that Śaṃkara is indeedconducting a dialogue with different Vaiṣṇavas, not simply refuting them, in the context of contemporary brahminical repositionings. I go on to identify the group he addresses as akin to the brahminical Sātvatas mentioned in the Jayākhyā-Saṃhitā and suggest a pedagogical reason for his unusual engagement with them. Finally I suggest on the basis of a career's study of Śaṃkara why it was that he, an Advaitin, counter-intuitively included the Bhagavad Gītā in the so-called triple canon on which subsequent Vedāntins were required to comment.

AB - The second pāda of the second adhyāya of the Brahma-sūtras is primarily concerned with the refutation of opponents to Vedānta, in the views of most commentators. In his Advaitin commentary, Śaṃkara c.700 A.D., makes this crystal clear in his vocabulary of rejection, invalidity and so forth. Even where he accepts that some of the opponent’s views may be acceptable, he is categorical in his rejection of what is incompatible with his Advaitin view. Under such circumstances, is it even possible to consider these arguments as ‘dialogues’? In this paper, I re-examine Śaṃkara’s approach to the Bhāgavatas in the light of work on Pāncarātra texts by Colas, Rastelli, Bock-Raming and others. Beginning with Brahma-sūtra-bhāṣya 2.2.42-45, but considering this material inthe light of Śaṃkara’s broader corpus too, I argue that Śaṃkara is indeedconducting a dialogue with different Vaiṣṇavas, not simply refuting them, in the context of contemporary brahminical repositionings. I go on to identify the group he addresses as akin to the brahminical Sātvatas mentioned in the Jayākhyā-Saṃhitā and suggest a pedagogical reason for his unusual engagement with them. Finally I suggest on the basis of a career's study of Śaṃkara why it was that he, an Advaitin, counter-intuitively included the Bhagavad Gītā in the so-called triple canon on which subsequent Vedāntins were required to comment.

KW - dialogue and interaction

KW - Hindu traditions

KW - Buddhism

KW - reasoning

KW - narrative

M3 - Chapter

SN - 978-1-138-54139-9

T3 - Routledge Dialogues in South Asian Traditions: Religion, Philosophy, Literature and History series

SP - 51

EP - 65

BT - In Dialogue with Classical Indian Traditions

A2 - Black, Brian

A2 - Ram-Prasad, Chakravarthi

PB - Routledge

CY - New York & London

ER -